> From: Intel-wired-lan [mailto:intel-wired-lan-bounces@osuosl.org] On Behalf> Of Benjamin Poirier> Sent: Friday, July 21, 2017 11:36 AM> To: Kirsher, Jeffrey T <jeffrey.t.kirsher@intel.com>> Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org; intel-wired-lan@lists.osuosl.org; linux-> kernel@vger.kernel.org; Lennart Sorensen <lsorense@csclub.uwaterloo.ca>> Subject: [Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH 5/5] e1000e: Avoid receiver overrun> interrupt bursts> > When e1000e_poll() is not fast enough to keep up with incoming traffic, the> adapter (when operating in msix mode) raises the Other interrupt to signal> Receiver Overrun.> > This is a double problem because 1) at the moment e1000_msix_other()> assumes that it is only called in case of Link Status Change and 2) if the> condition persists, the interrupt is repeatedly raised again in quick> succession.> > Ideally we would configure the Other interrupt to not be raised in case of> receiver overrun but this doesn't seem possible on this adapter. Instead,> we handle the first part of the problem by reverting to the practice of> reading ICR in the other interrupt handler, like before commit 16ecba59bc33> ("e1000e: Do not read ICR in Other interrupt"). Thanks to commit> 0a8047ac68e5 ("e1000e: Fix msi-x interrupt automask") which cleared IAME> from CTRL_EXT, reading ICR doesn't interfere with RxQ0, TxQ0 interrupts> anymore. We handle the second part of the problem by not re-enabling the> Other interrupt right away when there is overrun. Instead, we wait until> traffic subsides, napi polling mode is exited and interrupts are> re-enabled.> > Reported-by: Lennart Sorensen <lsorense@csclub.uwaterloo.ca>> Fixes: 16ecba59bc33 ("e1000e: Do not read ICR in Other interrupt")> Signed-off-by: Benjamin Poirier <bpoirier@suse.com>> ---> drivers/net/ethernet/intel/e1000e/defines.h | 1 +> drivers/net/ethernet/intel/e1000e/netdev.c | 33> +++++++++++++++++++++++------> 2 files changed, 27 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)>

I get an error and a few warnings out of checkpatch from this, but I think the error is false (thinking the reference to a commit in the description is this commit, a fixes commit or something like that) and I'm more concerned with the fix than the warnings, so...